1). You did a show on this when you were on Jesus or Muhammad at the end of April. The name of the episode is the same as this video.

2). This is a huge irony, muslims believe that we as Christians when we worship Christ Jesus and say that God is three persons, we are committing shirk. However, their god is committing shirk all over the place. Therefore that's a good reason for a us not to convert to Islam.

I think David wood is mistaken, that rule applies only to his creation. Allah tells us to pray to Allah only. Yet Allah does not pray, does that make Allah a wrong doer? David wood needs to separate the﻿ creation from the creator. Pretty sad argument from one of the best christian debaters. I honestly expected better from him.

Unfortunately there is no greeting in the English language with this meaning. It means the "God in me greets the God in you" which of course goes back to St. Pauls Statement IIC: "You are the Temple of God you know that the spirit of God dwells in you? " Muslims "hate" this greeting, because of course "allah" does not reside in humans.... and they work very hard to change the greetings to one more of their own liking... OK enough of this...

So if allah swears and for him not to commit "shirk" this would mean he must swear by himself "By me allah" or his profiteer ahm prophet would have quote him as saying allah says "By allah"! LOL.

Now if he swears by all that is seen and not seen, again the only way to get out of this accusation to commit shirk would be that allah is PART of EVERYTHING seen or unseen. To pick up Davids best example: Therefore is allah in PIGS? Are PIGS allah in some way? Is "Life" in this universe allah, again then is life in dogs and pigs "allah". Thanks for some great laughs but also for a very thought provoking video....

David, what a wonderful video! Its as simple as it can be. My 11 year old boy can understand this without any problem. I wonder why its so difficult for some followers of the religion of "peace" (islam ) to understand. Or do we need the arabic translation to understand such a simple presentation. These guys are so desperate that they hide behind " the meaning is different" " you dont understand" when it is your scholars that have done the translations. This is the beginining of the unravelling of the Koran and its true make up. We are wide awake now. So people its time to think for yourselves!

"I think David wood is mistaken, that rule applies only to his creation.

Allah tells us to pray to Allah only.

Yet Allah does not pray, does that make Allah a wrong doer? David wood needs to separate the﻿ creation from the creator. Pretty sad argument from one of the best christian debaters. I honestly expected better from him."

THE KORAM AGAIN

In chapters 2:157, 33:43 and 33:56 the Arabic has Allah praying.Muslims say that the clear meaning no longer means praying,and that only in this case does PRAY in ARABIC no longer mean PRAY.Read:

In Arabic, swear means "Qasam". Never once did Allah Almighty make a Qasam by anything, in the Glorious Quran. What the English translations translate as "I swear" is "wa", which is not swearing at all, but rather emphesising something's importance. Most of these were proven to be Scientific Notions that were confirmed to be scientifically 100% accurate.

OPEN CHALLENGE:

I challenge any of your Arab Christians to bring one Noble Verse from the Glorious Quran where Allah Almighty said "Uqsimu" (derived from Qasam) in the Glorious Quran. In fact, the times when this Word, Uqsimu, was used, it had "I need not to" before it. Example of this when Allah Almighty talked about the Black Holes in the Universe. He, the Almighty, Said "I need not to Uqsimu upon the khunnas, al-jawari al-kunnas".

Your point is empty. Your lack of Arabic combined with the poor English translations makes you a victim of ignorance.

FabianDenmark and Samatar Mohamed, I think the argument is not why Allah doesn't obey his own command but that the reason why he told Muslims not to swear by anything except him is because no one is equal or above to Allah and by swearing other than Allah would bring the thing they swear by equal to Allah. Therefore, Allah by swearing anything other than himself would bring the other being equal to himself. Since Allah is swearing by everything unseen and seen, everything is equal to himself. Hmmm amazing god...

yes Fala means I do not!But do you think the whole content you read is Allah saying "I do not swear?"

Read again! It means "Fala oqsimu bima tubsiroon"means I do not!, I swear by what you see 38 and what you do not see 39.

If you read the whole context 30-39 you can read that Allah will say: "Seize him and shackle him.30 Then into Hellfire drive him.31 And then insert him in a chain whereof the length is seventy cubits.32 Verily, he used not to believe in Allah, the Most Great,33Nor did he encourage the feeding of the poor.34 Therefore he has not here today a true friend,35 Nor any food except the filth of the wound.36 Which none but the sinners eat. 37 But I DO NOT! I swear by everything you see 38 and everything you do not see39

Now the big question mr. osama:Why does Allah need to swear at all? He got everything and he commanded everything according to Quran right?

If you mistaken mr. Wood poor arabic and mis-translation, of course yours ENTIRELY wrong for not reading that simple pause.

@minoriaThis objection raised by Arab Christians regarding 'Allah's prayers' has already been answered before. Allah's prayers are that he sends his peace and blessings towards his messengers and favors them over his other creations, and not a form of worship.

And I agree with Osama. The fact that David has little knowledge on the Arabic language really undermines his video.

The true God, the God of the Bible, swears by Himself (Genesis 22:15-17; Isaiah 45:23; 62:8; Jeremiah 22:4-5, 44:15-18, 25-27, 49:12-13; et al), for there is none greater by whom He can swear (Hebrews 6:12-14).

Your "god" on the other hand swears by everything under the sun. And then some.

As for your attempt to refute this, it is riddled with problems:

1) The UNARGUED claim that wa, “by”, emphasizes something and does not mean swearing runs aground on the following:

'Umar b. al-Khattib reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Allah, the Great and Majestic, forbids you TO SWEAR BY your fathers. Umar said: By Allah. I have never SWORN (by my father) since I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) forbidding mentioning them on my behalf or on behalf of someone else. (Muslim, 15.4035)

And

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who takes an oath in the course of which he says: By Lat (and al-'Uzza), he should say: There is no god but Allah; and that if anyone says to his friend: "Come and I will gamble with you," he should pay sadaqa. (Muslim, 15.4041)

According to the above, saying “By Lat”, etc., is a form of swearing and is blameworthy, and it should therefore be corrected with the saying: “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,” a fact that also shows that the use of such terminology involves worship, which is to be reserved for Allah alone. This is confirmed by the following from Buhkari, who relates it this way:

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "Whomever takes an oath in which he mentions Lat and 'Uzza (forgetfully), should say: None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and whoever says to his companion. 'Come along, let us gamble' must give alms (as an expiation)." (Bukhari, 60.383)

Even further confirmation of this is found here:

Chapter 9. What Has Been Related About ‘Whoever Swears By Other Than Allah, He Has Committed Shirk’

1535. Sa‘d bin ‘Ubaidah narrated that Ibn ‘Umar heard a man saying: "No by the Ka‘bah" so Ibn ‘Umar said: "Nothing is SWORN by other than Allah, for I heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘Whoever SWEARS by other than Allah, he has committed disbelief or Shirk.’" (Sahih)

[Abu ‘Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan.

According to some of the people of knowledge, the explanation of this Hadith is that his saying: "He has committed disbelief or Shirk" is to demonstrate its severity. The proof for that is the Hadith of Ibn ‘Umar: That the Prophet heard ‘Umar saying: ‘By my father! By my father!’ So he said: ‘Verily Allah prohibits you from SWEARING by your fathers.’" As well as the Hadith of Abu Hurairah from the Prophet, that he said: "Whoever says in his oath: ‘By Al-Lat! By Al-Uzza!’ Then let him say: ‘La Ilaha Illallah (None has the right to be worshiped but Allah)’." (English Translation of Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi, Compiled by Imam Hafiz ‘Eisa Mohammad Ibn ‘Eisa At-Tirmidhi, From Hadith no. 1205 to 1896, translated by Abu Khaliyl (USA), ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i, final review by Islamic Research Darussalam [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: November 2007], Volume 3, 18. The Chapters On Vows And Oaths From The Messenger Of Allah, p. 309; as cited here.)

So, contrary to your unargued and now refuted claim, we shouldn't find Allah blatantly engaging in such acts and swearing BY (wa) X, Y, and Z.

2) To say that the passages that use qasam are preceded by fala and therefore mean that Allah is denying that he swears by the things mentioned has several problems:

a) It would mean that Allah does not swear by himself, demonstrating that he is not the true God, for the following verses have just such a construction: 4:65, 70:40, 90:1.

b) The Arabic word you say constitutes a negation or denial that any oath is being made or that any swearing is going on is used in one of the aforementioned hadith; however, contrary to your thesis, this is explicitly said to be an act of swearing:

1535. Sa‘d bin ‘Ubaidah narrated that Ibn ‘Umar heard a man saying: "No by the Ka‘bah" so Ibn ‘Umar said: "Nothing is SWORN by other than Allah, for I heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘Whoever SWEARS by other than Allah, he has committed disbelief or Shirk.’" (Sahih)

In light of the above statement from Ibn ‘Umar who did not understand this as a negation of the oath that follows, I will assume we don’t need to bring a Christian who speaks Arabic to refute you. Why waste the time of Christians when Muslims do such a fantastic job refuting each other?

"I agree Osama. The fact that David has little knowledge on the Arabic language really undermines his video" and "Your lack of Arabic combined with the poor English translations makes you a victim of ignorance."

It is common by Muslim's favorite excuse. If true, why not Osama Abdallah make the new translation! It is no difference to some christians. Some christians's favorite excuse, "The modern translation of Holy Bible is errancy and not perfect, but the original of Holy Bible is perfect and inerrancy". Although, the credibility of Holy Bible is good. See how much pathetic and pity people is when they are go ahead to use excuse.

Folks, let us see what Ibn Kathir, who knew the Arabic, and wrote a massive commentary on the ARABIC Quran, not the English translation, has to say about Q. 69:38-39:

"Allah SWEARS by His creation, in which some of His signs can be seen in His creatures. These also indicate the perfection of His Names and Attributes. He then SWEARS by the hidden things that they cannot see. THIS IS AN OATH SWEARING that the Qur'an is His Speech, His inspiration and His revelation to His servant and Messenger, whom He chose to convey His Message, and the Messenger carried out this trust faithfully." (http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1259&Itemid=125)

I guess Ibn Kathir didn't assume that fala was meant to somehow negate what immediately follows it, but understood it to be separate and distinct from what comes after.

Oh but wait, Ibn Kathir really didn't understand the Arabic. Allah had to wait to create Osama Abdallah before anyone could ever understand the Quran which is supposedly written in clear Arabic.

This is the same way Osama butchers the Arabic in order to make the Quran sound scientifically accurate.

Osama, I sure hope you make such stupid claims and arguments in our debates since we are going to have a field day with you.

You don't seam to understand what Shirk is. Again... Shirk is "Association in Worship" It is something that can only be committed by worshipers (the creation) not the to-be-worshiped (The Creator) by definition. ALLAH does not worship as He is The Ultimate Creator to be﻿ worshiped; therefore, cannot make Shirk. When ALLAH, The Almighty, swears, He swearing can only be featuring the the sworn-by of His creation as a great miracle to study and learn from.

SO INDEED (fa-lā: lā is extra) I swear by all that you see, of creatures, and all that you do not see: of them, in other words, [I SWEAR] BY all creatures:(Tafsir al-Jalalayn: http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=69&tAyahNo=38&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2; http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=69&tAyahNo=39&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2)

(But nay! I swear by all that ye see And all that ye see not) O people of Mecca; it is also said that this means: I SWEAR by what you see, i.e. the sky and the earth, and that which you do not see, i.e. the Garden and the Fire; and it also said that this means: I SWEAR by what you see, the sun and the moon, and by that which you do not see, the Throne and the Stool; and it is also said that this means: I SWEAR by what you see, i.e. Muhammad and that which you do not see, Gabriel. ALLAH SWORE BY ALL THESE. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs: http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=69&tAyahNo=38&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2; http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=69&tAyahNo=39&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2)

These poor Muslim scholars. They didn't know that Allah was going to send them a messenger in the 21st century to accurately explain the Arabic language of the Quran. If only Allah had revealed this to them they could have saved so much time from writing commentaries which only expose their ignorance in light of what we now know the Arabic of the Quran really says, thanks to Osama Abdallah, a.k.a. rasulullah. :-)

Interesting comment.I know the response by Muslims that the Arabic word would in effect mean "to bless" instead of to literally pray.I know words have multiple meanings in a language but from what I know that specific Arab word is not used to mean blessing except in the case of Allah.

The impression is the meaning of the word was changed after the Koran,changed intentionally.

Hello Curly:

I know you do not hear and fortunately the video had the citations written.The only thing you missed was the last part of the argument.

After David said Allah swears by "all that you see and do not see" he said then that means:

Allah also swears by SATAN, by a PIG(he showed a picture of a pig),by pornography,by what is in the toilet,by all seen and unseen.

ABOUT ALLAH SWEARING

From what I know the Arabic does not say "I SWEAR" but it does imply it.

EXAMPLE

In English if you say "BY my HONOR",of course it is UNDERSTOOD you are swearing by your honor.

If Islam is so clear, then why does it need so much correcting by the faithful?Why did it need Sharia?Why did it need Uthman?And then there are all these criticisms of Dr. Wood's lack of Arabic . . . If Arabic is the only "clear language" then obviously the deity of Islam is only the deity of the Arabs.Also, Muslims claim that their "Allah" is separate from the creation.If that is the case, then why all the dietary and touch-rules?Why is a woman unclean?Why is a pig unclean?Why is anything unclean in the first place?If Allah and his worship are holy, then these magical things don't matter.But, of course, Muslim worship is profane.It is not holy.And to write or say that is not an insult.

It is so funny to read "something was mistranslated". Now lets just for the moment focus on WHAT is being translated. It is not a news-paper clipping about a camel trowing off a rider. Here we have a "book" supposed to be a guide to eternal bliss with 72 grapes/virgins. It is claimed to be the most important book ever to be written. But if a book is clear in one language, it can be also be clear in another! If a person haphazardly mistranslates the book, why is it NOT DOUBLE-CHECKED by the scholars who can read in both languages? Why is it that those mistranslation are only admitted when they are used against the religion of Islam. If there would no criticism be raised, would the mistranslation stay uncorrected?

Then it so also so hilarious that "Germans" "English" "Italian" and "French" Translators MAKE the same Error. So different humans who translate the "Arabic" into their own language make the same error? Now how great are the odds for that?

Now I just cite two examples: In one the "stoned-gawd" allah calls to witness "objects" which humans "see". Now I've not heard any Tree, Stone or the Moon "witness" to allah! Much more difficult would it be to hear a witness by something which cannot be seen! And for whose benefit are the witness? Would it not be for humans, trying to convince them of "allah"

#+#+# 69: taken from: " www.koransuren.de/en/the_quran/sura69.html" 38 So I do call to witness what ye see, 39 And what ye see not, #+#+#+#

Then the German (from the same Website: "www.koransuren.de/koran/sure69.html"

"Ich schwöre" means "I swear". Now how "unclear" must the original old Arabic kooraan be (that is no longer spoken I'm told) that it can be "translated" in such different ways? Latin is dead language, and the works written in this language does not suffer from this....

In one language it is clearly "I swear" while in the other "I call to witness" .... a pig since I personally can see them when I meet a friend owning a farm and ask them if they can witness to allah "Oink! Oink!" will not be sufficient as proof for me... :-)

So back to the point: If the most important book is wrongly translated what business had those persons to do this job in the first place.....

Samatar, I don't think you understand since your link refutes Osama, and exposes his ignorance of the Arabic language.

For example, here is what Philips says about the particle la, which we find in Q. 69:38 as fa-la:

Occasionally both the verb, the particle, and the person or thing by which the oath is taken are all deleted, leaving only the person, thing, or event on which the oath is taken, prefixed with la, A PARTICLE OF EMPHASIS...

Notice that la is not a particle of negation, but one of emphasis. In other words, it is not meant to deny or negate the oath which immediately follows, but to emphasize or affirm it!

Dr. Bilal Philips also lists the following verses as examples of swearing or oath taking: 3:186; 4:65; 64:7; 75:1-2; 91:1-2.

All of these texts, with the exception of Q. 91:1-2, contain the particle la, with Q. 4:65 even using the same construction found in Q. 69:38, namely fala.

So I guess Bilal Philips is another Muslim who doesn't understand the Arabic of the Quran, and needs Allah's messenger, Osama Solomon, to make things clear for him as well.

I do encourage the folk who can see through Osama's smokescreens to read this article for themselves to see how Osama gets powned by another one of his fellow Muslim scholars and authorities.

Let me remind you of your condition that you put on me and your partner:

"I have one condition to add to Osama's. There should be no direct communication between Sam and Osama prior the debate (not even emails)."

I am honoring this condition. As men with integrity (let alone believers in our Faiths), we are expected to honor our words. I thought Christ also said "Let your yes be yes and let your no be no." Some people obviously have no regard to even their faith's teachings, nor to their partners' or teams' commitments.

Anyway, please put a stop to this baffoon. And no, don't worry about me cancelling. I just hope the baffoon here is not trying to create an excuse to bug out by directly talking to me and violating your condition.

I don't know the specifics of the pre-debate conditions or if commenting on a thread unrelated to the debate constitutes a violation of said conditions, but I can say that it is certainly funny when one person wants to call someone a BUFFOON but ends up calling them a "baffoon" (twice) instead.

Is this how you plan on leaving this discussion, Osama? Is this supposed to be your excuse for not defending what you wrote above?

Let me see if I've got your meaning correct. I said that you and Sam shouldn't have direct communication prior to the debate, so that you don't start arguing and such. So now you believe that you can come on our blog, make all kinds of false claims (which totally contradict the Qur'an, your prophet, his companions, and Islam's greatest commentators), and Sam is not allowed to correct your numerous errors? But that would mean that you get to deceive people without correction. A Muslim apologist's dream!

Sorry, but by commenting on the blog, you're inviting correction. I think you and Sam need to avoid each other prior to the debate, but if Sam catches you distorting the facts, and possibly leading people into error, I'm not going to stop him from showing people the truth.

There's one way to settle this, however. The debates are only a week away. There's no need for you to add further comments until after the debates. And since Sam has refuted your claims, there's no need for him to add further comments. So I think things are settled. As long as I don't accept any more comments from you, there will be no further interaction between you and Sam. Problem solved. See you in Arizona.

Do you always have to be the spokesman for others? What business is this to you?

If the buffon wants to bug out, then it is perfectly fine with me. I can do all 3 debates with David. I am tired of trying to make sure that he'll actually show up. This was actually my condition, that he'll actually show up. Imagine how silly this is.

If he's trying to bug out, then to hell with him. I've already made my case. Like I said, I can do all three debates with David.

Your condition is crystal clear. No need to try to change its meanings. Your partner is not the only person in the world who can respond. Plus, if he wanted to respond, he could've simply avoided speaking to me directly.

Like I said, don't worry about me cancelling. I just wanted to put him on check and to show everyone who is violating the conditions.

I think you missed the point. This blog is "Answering Muslims: The Islamoblog of Acts 17 Apologetics." Sam is Acts 17, so by commenting here, you were addressing your comments to Sam and everyone else here. Sam simply corrected your errors.

So there's no point in trying to point fingers. Sam will be on stage in Phoenix this Sunday. As long as you show up, people will see some exciting debates. Now I'm going to have to temporarily block you from the blog, since I suspect you're going to keep complaining for no reason. Blocking your comments will end all further discussion between you and Sam.

Are you always this ungrateful? I taught you how to call someone a buffoon w/o looking like one, and you turn aroung and pretend I was arrogating to myself the role of a spokesmen w/o any authority from Sam. Some thanks I get for being a swell guy.

And for the record, I speak for Sam every other Friday and Saturday (unless they happen to fall on Christmas or New Years).

Is Osama Abdullah debating Sam shamoun. Because I thought Sam shamoun was under the name Ben Malik. Anyways, will the debates be up on youtube because i will definitely watch them. Also,are there any other muslim-christian debates. Thanks.

Samatar, I think you got me confused with your prophet since he is the one that actually went by another identity at times. Muhammad would often sign in as Allah in the Quran. Hence, Muhammad is Allah and Allah is Muhammad, since they are the alter egos of each other.

I think they are using some of the most respected translations, by Yussuf Ali, Pickthal and Shakir. I hope for all the western muslim converts out there that those "translators" knew the importance for the eternal souls of their future readers that they put the most effort into their work to translate the kooraan...

YA: I do call to witness this City;- Pickthal: Nay, I swear by this city - Shakir : Nay! I swear by this city.

Now what is more "foolish" to swear by a PAGAN City? or to call this PAGAN City to be a witness for a "stoned gawd"?

Did allah make now a unnamed pagan city his "partner"? Now if Yussuf Ali's translation is the most accurate translation of the clear Arabic:

Can allah TODAY call this UNSPECIFIED (some claim it to be Mecca) city to be his witness? And how should a "city" know anything if allah in his kooraan many times over stated that the "unbelievers" have no knowledge?

At the time the portion of this Sura was "revealed" Mecca or Medina were either "pagan" or a mixture of paganism/jewish (Yatrib/Medina) And if not these cities, which city calls allah as a witness or swears by it? Does allah swear by the city MoHAMmel visited in outer space on his night-journey to a NON-EXISTING Jewish Temple?

Like I wrote in my first reply to this video, it is very thought provoking indeed, and gives me a lot more "ammunition" to dispel the myth of the kooraan being a revelation of the creator of the universe.... :-) Sorry Muslims can't buy this Islam, especially since it does not offer any salvation or explains the need of it. But this is a topic I let the more able folks of Acts 17 to deal with.

@ Anthony Rogers:"Killing a human being is not a sin per se." Thank you for being smart to point out your own fallacy. We need to put the definition first: A Sin is what humans do, in disobedience to God. I know Christian theology teaches that God as a being subject to his law, and must fulfill it himself like humans ( offering sacrifice for sin). In Islam, God is really Sovereign. You teach sovereignty just for lip service, we teach it for real. God is over the law, he is the maker of law.

in examplle: Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people's diaphragms. Therefore, surgeons are criminals. Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.

But you must see that there is another fallacy :Yusuf Ali Q9:29Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

It is called "Irrelevant Effect /Conclusion"

Why Allah needs you to defend his own integrity? If Allah is so intolerant that he forgot his attribute of Mercy? Why Allah needs Jizyah /money to subdue /humble? I know Muhammad did, he loved money, infact a certain ayat indicates if a muslim worry about their reduce income.

Actually, that is not what I meant, but thanks for pointing out a significant difference between our view of God's relation to holiness and goodness. From the Christian perspective, God IS holy and IS good. As such, He is the standard, the ultimate norm of Christian ethics. Holiness and goodness are neither standards that God looks up to, nor are they "creatures" that he could arbitrarily make differently if He wanted to, the latter of which you admit is true of your "god". With this being the case, you admit that your god, being "sovereign" over right and wrong rather than the standard of it, can make pedophilia, muta marriage, and associating partners with himself a "good" thing. Thanks for reminding us that the Eutyphro dilemma applied as much to ancient paganism as it does to the Islamic conception of God. Socrates would be pleased to see that his argument still has some applicability in our modern age.

Both sides. I like to discuss things with people but when they become arrogant and move towards insulting each other I prefer to stay away. Religion is a personal belief and everybody here should be respecting each other. If there's a problem, it's best to point it out in the best mannerly way possible. No point in discussing things with anyone if the only thing being done is trying to shut them up with insults and arrogance.

@ Anthony Rogers: With this being the case, you admit that your god, being "sovereign" over right and wrong rather than the standard of it, can make pedophilia, muta marriage, and associating partners with himself a "good" thing

Can you tell me Mr Rogers, sacrificing your own son, is it a Sin or a righteousness? What is God's standard about this particular issue?

Note: Muslims would be happy to count Aristotle and Plato as a Muslims, but unfortunately the early Church made them already honorary Christians. lol.

For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ; and in obedience to Him, we not only deny that they who did such things as these are gods Justin Martyr

One way to expose David wood's fallacy is to quote a more prominent and very respected Christian apologist William Lane Craig:

According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God. Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition..

Next is a direct refutation of Anthony Roger's claims:

The problem with Islam, then, is not that it has got the wrong moral theory; it’s that it has got the wrong God. If the Muslim thinks that our moral duties are constituted by God’s commands, then I agree with him.

Yes Anthony , W L Craig must have taken that from Aristotle looooooooooooool.

1mm said: "Can you tell me Mr Rogers, sacrificing your own son, is it a Sin or a righteousness? What is God's standard about this particular issue?"

Yes, it would be a sin for me to sacrifice my son, but not because the living God is arbitrary and fickle like Muhammad's Allah. But I am planning a blog post on this in your honor, so I will have more to say on this.

1mm said: "Note: Muslims would be happy to count Aristotle and Plato as a Muslims, but unfortunately the early Church made them already honorary Christians. lol."

You mean there were no Muslims around to beat the early Christian apologists to the punch? Hmmmm

For all that, some Muslims did later try to co-opt Aristotle after Islam was invented. It is a matter of historical record.

In fact, some of the Muslims who did this found out the same thing that others, like a number of poets at the time of Muhammad, whose "personal beliefs" included the idea that sarcasm can be a legitimate way to express disagreement and engage in "inter-faith dialogue," found out: it meant that your head will be divorced from your body as if it were the wife of an adopted son. So mainstream Muslims did not turn out to be as excited about the idea of granting them honorary status as Muslims as you pretend to be.

Please feel free to share this last bit of info with Kim the next time she rebukes you and tacitly condemns her own prophet and later Muslims in the process.

I have no obligation as a Christian to agree with Craig's way of attenuating the matter. You have the wrong God and the wrong moral theory. That's why you didn't deal with the fact that your voluntaristic and nominalistic conception of Allah and ethics entails that Allah can play flip-flop on what he approves of and disapproves of, something well illustrated in the career of Muhammad.

David has made clear in a new post how you, 1MM, have misrepresented Craig. Although I would have stated part of what you, 1mm, quoted from Craig differently, the fundamental point that I made turns out to be consistent with the essential point Craig was making in the full context in which he said it.

On my view, God's expressed will, his commands, flow from His unchanging, holy character. It is the fact that the command comes from God that makes it holy and good, not the mere fact that He woke up one day and decided he would say x is good (at least for the time being, until he decides to say otherwise). For that reason God cannot one day lay down the moral duty not to have any other God before Him, and the next day say it is okay to have a false god. He cannot, for it would be inconsistent with who and what He is, i.e. the only true God, to say one day that you can associate partners with him, and the next day say it is okay to associate partners with him. He also can't associate partners with Himself in the name of being "above the law" without lying or contradicting his own character, which is impossible for God to do.

Ironically enough, it is just this view that is stated in a context that directly bears upon the issue of divine swearing:

"13For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, 14saying, "Surely I will bless you and multiply you." 15And thus Abraham, having patiently waited, obtained the promise. 16For people swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. 17So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, 18so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us." (Hebrews 6)

David Wood:I understand the one who embraces incarnation theology would certainly have difficulty in discerning the between the Divine and the Creature:

Can your god lust after a woman, or a man, or a child? If your answer is "no," please explain why, in a manner consistent with your moral theory.

First let's define words:lust 1.intense sexual desire or appetite.2.uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.3.a passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually followed by for ): a lust for power.4.ardent enthusiasm; zest; relish: an enviable lust for life.

Since sexual desire is created by God. Therefore God would not do such thing, otherwise we will believe in Greek gods who love and lust after each other and beget children, because they are half humans half Gods, or as Christians say: fully God fully human.This is the same mean argument as to say : can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift.

Anthony washed his hands from William L Craig, why don't you do the same? lol

I didn't wash my hands of Craig. I said I have no obligation to agree with the way it is attenuated in the quote you supplied (out of context) from Craig. I do not believe Muslims have an adequate moral theory. In fact, the moral theory you have enunciated, which turns out to be different from Craig's in the relevant sense I was talking about, destroys any possibility of having a justification for fixed ethics. David has more than capably - in fact, superbly - refuted your misuse of Craig.

Hmmm, and I thought the Kooraan claims that the god of the Jews and Christians as well as Muslims IS THE SAME ONE AND ONLY.... and yet 1mm points out here there is a difference between them. That the Islamic "god" is the real one. So now who is correct, the supposedly word of allah the stoned-gawd muslim the world over turn to 5 times daily (if they can manage it) or a mere human going by the screen name 1moremuslim. Actually I think you discuss a man made concept of god. if there is one, I doubt it to be the Islamic one, because some passages of the kooraan describes allah to be in hell, torturing people who happened to be unbelievers....

The worst "scripture verse" IMHO ever invented by a human: koorancrap: 4:54 second part: ..... "And Hell is sufficient for their burning. Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire. As often as their skin is burnt and singed, roasted through, We shall change it for fresh skin, so that they may go on tasting the torment."

The first time I ever read the crap called kooraan could not read past this verse. What a demented sadistic mind could ever THINK OF SUCH PUNISHMENT! Burn Victims suffer long until they are healed, and in order to "exchange" the skin for a fresh one, this allah would need to use some of his miracle-powers to do all that. How sick is this? Never mind that I ever believed in a god/allah/deity like that, even if in the Bible one can find hell too. But the lice-ridden Mohammel and his "stoned gawd" allah top the description of hell in the Bible many times over.

Then in 73:11 "Leave Me alone to deal with the beliers (those who deny My Verses). Respite those who possess good things for a little while. Verily, with Us are heavy shackles (to bind), a raging fire (to burn), food that chokes, and a torturous penalty of a painful doom." here "Allah" is in charge and he is the one dishing out the punishment.... There are even Websites (most I found in German) that use 4:54 as some sort of miracle and to validate the kooraan-crap.

Oh as to "Respect" or some might sense a lack of it in my comments: Ideas, Religions, are not humans and can not be "insulted"! I've shouted at my Bible on the cup-borad, but it didn't flinch! "Dialog of religions" some claim, go ahead and put the Bible, the Kooraan and other religious books on chairs and see if they can have any "exchange" of ideas! One can only "respect" a human being, and even the level of this is not the same, I doubt that one could muster the same "respect" for a serial killer or for a person giving her life to the poor of the world. As to MoHAMmel for a religious person he just doesn't do it for me, to convert to Islam, he is just too lacking.....

What a demented sadistic mind could ever THINK OF SUCH PUNISHMENT! Burn Victims suffer long until they are healed, and in order to "exchange" the skin for a fresh one, this allah would need to use some of his miracle-powers to do all that. How sick is this?

Ha Ha Ha. You really made me laugh there my friend. And i guess the christian hell will be loving, merciful, and extremely generous to our skin.

2: 47 Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all other (for My Message).

2:53 And remember We gave Moses the Scripture and the Criterion (Between right and wrong): There was a chance for you to be guided aright.

2:60 And remember Moses prayed for water for his people; We said: "Strike the rock with thy staff." Then gushed forth therefrom twelve springs. Each group knew its own place for water. So eat and drink of the sustenance provided by Allah, and do no evil nor mischief on the (face of the) earth.

3: 1-3 1 Allah! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal. 2 Allah! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal. 3 It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).

4: 163 We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms.

5:43 But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) law before them?- therein is the (plain) command of Allah; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) People of Faith. 44 It was We who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not my signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers. 45 We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers. 46 And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. 47 Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

[quote end]

I love it when Muslims trash the Bible, when their "stoned-gawd" claimed to have revealed all of them... Torah, Gospel/New Testament and the Kooraan

If even human beings do not swear by what is less than themselves and are only to swear by Allah, then all the more so should Allah swear by nothing besides himself if there is nothing greater than him. You fail to see that your god claims to be greater, but then he proves by his actions that he is inferior to human beings when he swears by what is inferior even to them. And just so you can see how different your god is from the true and living God, witness how the true God swears:

“I solemnly swear BY MY OWN NAME, decrees the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be as countless as the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the seashore." (Genesis 22:16-17)

"Now when God made his promise to Abraham, since he could swear by no one greater, HE SWORE BY HIMSELF, saying, “ Surely I will bless you greatly and multiply your descendants abundantly." (Hebrews 6:13-14)

Since this exposes how feeble your reasoning ability is, you shouldn't call yourself "logia" or call other people "ignorant." Just a thought.

Hello - I have read most of the comments on video. For me its strange to see you all fighting over god v allah and what the writing in the last book of the same believe means! You are all from the same believe/religion, as far as I could understand Muslim = Believer; Islam = Enlighten way; God = Allah etc... I would like both of you comely analyzing and talking about the books of your believe but not saying you believe in allah and you believe is good, and trying to prove each other books to be hoax and each other god/allah is stupid or so. You all come from the same believe and I personally respect Believers but I hate religions, both Islam and Christianity are worst political parties ever existed in human history, both did big crimes in name of god/allah that is in contrary to what all his books speak of!

Don't forget that prior to believe in one god came to Europe we had nice established system that had also very much human face, great civilization and great philosophy. Your believe came from Israelite and Arabic people (btw even according to your books, both arabc and israelites are from Abraham/Ibrahim)

Well there are still old Europeans, ans seining you guys arguing over the absolutely same thing, same believe, makes me even feel more confident. The old european system allows all to believe in all what they want and argue intellectually about it. They never ever started a war about it or did any kind of crime.

The major problem with the Muslim arguing Allah can break his own rule (regarding people swearing on anything/anyone other than Allah swearing by anything), because he is giving it to men and not himself, is this:

If Allah can break any rule he has given men, then he can also lie. So, in the Qur'an, he can be lying in everything he says to Mohammed, and thereby have Mohammed promoting his lies in everything that Mohammed teaches. In fact, if Allah were to say he cannot lie and despises lies, he may be completely lying about that. So, the Muslim cannot count out the possibility that Allah might have been lying. He has no guarantee that Mohammed was really a prophet relaying divine truth, or a pack of lies. Thus, he has no guarantee that Islam teaches the truth about God and is a religion teaching truth.

Now, some Muslims above asserted that Christianity is inconsistent, since God "murders" people, but commands that people cannot murder other people. However, this is a fallacious argument, because we are God's creation, his creatures, his possession. Just as we can take the lives of our cows or chickens, he can take our lives. Moreover, his taking the lives of those faithful to him actually just ushers them in to a better existence; a reward of eternity with him. Thus it is a positive. His taking the lives of his enemies also enters into the issue of his justice, and sending them to their just reward in eternal punishment. In other words, their argument is without merit.

A final point, Jesus taught that Satan was a liar from the beginning, the father of lies, and the Apostle John said that "no lie is of the truth." But we know that God is "the God of truth," according to scripture. So, according to the Bible, if Allah can lie, then he is not God. That would mean the Muslim god, Allah, is either an evil spirit (jinn), just as Mohammed originally suspected, or Satan himself. Needless to say, that possibility is a serious problem for Islam.

This topic offers yet another excellent proof that Allah as discribed in the Qur'an IS NOT the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob recorded in the Bible. In this case, the evidence is that the God of the Bible swears by himself, since there is nothing higher (and certainly will not swear by anything or anyone lower). In contrast, the Allah of the Qur'an swears by many and all things lower than himself.

This describes a fundamental difference in nature and perspective between the two. There is a stature to the nature and character of the God of the Bible that is so far above all else, and the seriousness of swearing so important (holding the swearer to his covenant / promise / word) that God can only swear by himself! This makes sense, of course, for how could he swear by anything less than himself (not to mention anything in fallen creation) to confirm his own oath.

The concept of Allah presented by Mohammed is, therefore, so much lower in nature, in quality, in character than than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the Bible as to be no less than the difference between darkness (Mohammed's version of Allah) and light (the God of Abraham revealed in the Bible). It is the difference bewteen a created (or invented) thing, and the awesome, utterly holy, omnipotent, eternal, transcendent, self-existent, over and above all, God of the Bible.

Muslims may protest this. But it is simply true. One (the God of the Bible) swears only by his own person/name, for there is none else to swear by, since there is no one greater. The other swears by anything and everything in even fallen creation. The two are not the same God.

Samatar Mohamed where does it say that allah can swear by anything but his creation cannot!? Please back it up with a scripture from quran! Anyone who tells others to do one thing but does not practice it himself is a person not to be respected since he has double standards. Jesus lived to show us what we as his followers do, he did not need a baptism but He did it to set an example for us. This allah is a bipolar god who tells muslims to go to the people of the book if in doubt and in the next breath he calls the people of the book, worst of creatures! Who can have respect for a psycho like allah! May Jesus Christ, the Word of God, open your spiritually blind eyes and may you come to repentance and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, He loves you!

Samatar Mohamed Please back up what you are saying with a reference from quran. This bipolar preislamic god allah can't command like that and then not set any example for his followers. He cannot be trusted, in one breath he commands muslims to refer to the people of the book and in the next breath he calls them 'worst of creatures!' No-one in their right mind would follow a being so contradictive devoid of any integrity! Jesus Christ didn't have to do many things, for example be baptised in water but he did it to set an example for us Christians. How can this phycho muslim god be trusted by his followers. I can only pray that you will one day come to the knowledge of Jesus Christ and the Truth who He is and reject this joke of a religion Islam that is causing so much bloodshed in the world!

Women in Islam

American Freedom Law Center

America

The Truth about CAIR

FAQ Page

On this website, we engage Muslims and the foundations of Islam without trying to be "PC". We feel honesty is better than disguised language. As you can read on our FAQ, this is out of love, not out of hatred. Thanks, and we're looking forward to seeing your comments!